50 Wis. 2d 368 - Warrix v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . this court in State v. Stevens (1965), 26 Wis. 2d 451, 460 , 132 N. W. 2d 502 , has upheld a custodial search of the person on the ground it was required for the safety of the prisoner and the law enforcement officers and by the efficient operation and administration of a jail. Such custodial search after arrest must bear a reasonable relationship, not to the arrest, but to jail custodial purposes and one of the custodial requirements is the inventorying of possessions belonging to the accused and placing them in safekeeping during his custody in jail. . . .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 68 Wis. 2d 649 - State v. Mordeszewski · 104 Wis. 2d 700 - State v. Fillyaw

2. ““The defendants argue the use of the flashlight at 2:15 o’clock in the morning to look into the interior of a car was an exploratory investigation in violation of their fourth amendment rights. A policeman may use a flashlight to bring into plain sight what natural light would have revealed if the ‘look-see’ had taken place in daylight. A search implies prying into hidden places for what is hidden. Gouled v. United States (1921), 255 U. S. 298 , 41 Sup. Ct. 261, 65 L. Ed. 647 . The observance by sunlight or artificial light of that which is open and patent is not a search. Smith v. United States (4th Cir. 1924), 2 Fed. 2d 715; United States v. Lee (1927), 274 U. S. 559 , 47 Sup. Ct. 746, 71 L. Ed. 1202 . The argument a flashlight renders unreasonable what is otherwise a reasonable search is itself unreasonable. We agree with the statement in Sweeting v. State (1969), 5 Md. App. 623 , 249 Atl. 2d 195, 198, ‘. . . where an officer is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be (as here, on a public street), the shining of a flashlight at night inside the vehicle while remaining outside does not amount to an illegal search under the fourth amendment.’ ” 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 66 Wis. 2d 233 - Anderson v. State

3. “Many times claims against the police have been made by the accused that personal property has disappeared from his car while he and the car were in police custody. To protect the police from such claims, a custodial search and inventory may be made of the personal property in a car which can be easily removed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 83 Wis. 2d 134 - Thompson v. State